Is it just me, or should Apple marketing be pushing these to non-Apple users?
The question is, do you think they would stand to gain more or less money/marketshare by doing such a thing? I suspect the answer is less. It also means less differentiation between Mac and wintel.
I know the instinct is "I want this on my PC," but Apple has more to consider than that -- like do they really want to make a business out of selling cross-platform gadgets, possibly at the partial expense of their computer business?
I would say the #1 blunder in Apple's release of this product is lack of support for configuring it from an x86 PC (running Windows or Linux or your BSD of choice).
Apple's goal with devices like this and the iPod is not to have everyone (including wintel users) buy them, but to provide more value and a better experience to the Mac platform. From what I can tell, Apple doesn't make much money on the base stations themselves. But as part of the total Mac equation, it makes a lot of sense, espeically in the long term.
They may not explicitly prevent wintel machines from using these devices, but there's no point in making it easy seeing as their main goal is to sell computers.
This was a rather large bug and suggests that not too much testing was done. If Apple becomes known for releasing buggy software that crashes your computer then they might dig themselves even deeper graves in the tech industry.
Now WebTV and Mac, that are.5% and 1.5% of this website? They probably aren't worth spending resources on beyond testing on the Mac, but you have to evaluate your costs.
MacIE5 was the first shipping browser to completely support CSS1, and has equivalent or better CSS1 support than any version of WinIE.
If you want such-and-such a paragraph to appear in such-and-such a place, should you have to use funky kludges such as "invisible GIFs" to get the thing to line up properly? You shouldn't HAVE to use invisible GIFs. Or tables in tables in tables in...
The programmers want xhtml/css, and none of this crap with embedded tables and transparent gifs. I try to explain to the graphics guys that this is not a magazine, it's a web page, but they don't seem to be able to get it
You guys are secretly on the same side. In additional to providing better content/display separation, xml/xhtml/css provides *more* control over the display, providing more magazine-like features.
But arguing with designers that their designed should be more pedestrian isn't going to accomplish anything. They are trained and expected to be creative and push the boundaries, not churn out the web equivalent of a russian submarine design ethic.
Netscape 4 on Linux (fucking nasty!)
Netscape 4 is severly behind the times and severly broken in terms of rendering modern standards. It wasn't even compliant with CSS1 back when it was introduced in 1997, and the rendering engine has hardly changed since. A lot of people are simply giving up on Netscape 4 because it's such a nightmare to support and no longer is actively maintained.
In fact, the only reason some people still use nested tables and single pixel spacers are because Netscape 4's CSS support is so horrible.
If you don't code html simple and to the standards, it will only look good on your machine/browser
Although history has shown that browser's standard support does not improve until sites start using them.
I am also worried in general about Nintendo's catalog and release schedule...Even months after the initial release, the software release schedule does not seem very complete.
I'm pretty sure I hear this every time a new game system is launched.
Then on September 13th, 2000, Apple released MacOS X public beta.
Actually, the more significant event was probably when Apple demoed Mac OS X for the first time at the January 2000 Macworld Expo. That's when everyone did the "whoa" when they saw Aqua for the first time.
(Okay... little strangeness there with/. -- let's try this again.)
Those talking about shadows not matching up are very stupid and ignoring the fact that a normal room contains a varied mix of ambient, omni, and spot lighting.
Apple may have a PDA in the labs, but this photo portrays an object that has nothing in common with the Apple design ethic other than it is silver. And even then, only one other Apple product is silver.
While I respect John's reviews (and frequent ars), I think he understated the advantage of the speed boost in 10.1. Where my family's G3/450 desktop originally could not run OS X acceptably, as of 10.1 it has become the primary OS
I second that. An iBook G3/500 with 128MB of ram was unusable with 10.0.4. But it zips right along under 10.1.
You know how Solaris 2.6 was reported as SunOS 5.6? It's like that. Mac OS X is more than a version number, it's a new brand name. They may change it again, though.
What Apple should have done, IMHO, is acknowledge that this is a new operating system, which is System 10. I am pronouncing it "Mac OS Ten" or "Mac OS Ten point One."
My guess is that the X is supposed to be a convenient and obvious way to express that this is not a continuation of the old product line. I've seen posts even on slashdot where people don't understand that OS9 and OSX are completely different types of operating systems. The fact that X has something of double meaning is very much in Apple's style.
They should leave the "X" as a marketing gimmick anyway, since all it really does is make people confuse it with the X Window System.
It's certainly a marketing gimmick as well, but I doubt they're very concerned about people confusing X11 with it.
many commentators with an eye towards, and knowledge about HCI find OS X to be a step backwards from MacOS
Well, perhaps the design differs from what they would envision, but that doesn't make them bad.
A lot of the article I've read in the context you describe consists of people heavily mixing their own personal tastes with fact. They are afraid pretty things are major threat to robot-like efficiency.
All too often, there are people speaking purely from the perspective of scientific interaction, not taking overall experience into account. There's more to it than how quickly a action can be performed. Experience is what really dictates the user's level of satisfaction. My sister, for example, enjoys her iBook much more with Mac OS X installed on it. Whether a UI expert thinks she should or not doesn't really matter. She likes Mac OS X.
I share my sister's sentiment. I like my computer experience much better with Mac OS X running than any other operating system.
User interface is in no way a mature medium, and I would guess rules are going to be rewritten before some stablization occurs. Not that these commentators didn't bring up some valid points, but many of them have been addressed since the public beta came out.
Slashdot Mirror
The first one is an exchange with a person who signed the name 'avi'
Avadis Tevanian's nickname is "Avie."
- Scott
Is it just me, or should Apple marketing be pushing these to non-Apple users?
The question is, do you think they would stand to gain more or less money/marketshare by doing such a thing? I suspect the answer is less. It also means less differentiation between Mac and wintel.
I know the instinct is "I want this on my PC," but Apple has more to consider than that -- like do they really want to make a business out of selling cross-platform gadgets, possibly at the partial expense of their computer business?
- Scott
I would say the #1 blunder in Apple's release of this product is lack of support for configuring it from an x86 PC (running Windows or Linux or your BSD of choice).
Apple's goal with devices like this and the iPod is not to have everyone (including wintel users) buy them, but to provide more value and a better experience to the Mac platform. From what I can tell, Apple doesn't make much money on the base stations themselves. But as part of the total Mac equation, it makes a lot of sense, espeically in the long term.
They may not explicitly prevent wintel machines from using these devices, but there's no point in making it easy seeing as their main goal is to sell computers.
- Scott
What are the earliest statements they've found? What do they say?
"First post"
- Scott
This was a rather large bug and suggests that not too much testing was done. If Apple becomes known for releasing buggy software that crashes your computer then they might dig themselves even deeper graves in the tech industry.
I have one thing to say to this....
"Eh?"
- Scott
Am I the only one that the fact this gets an entire topic to itself is a little weird. Maybe in a "quickies" or something...
- Scott
Now WebTV and Mac, that are .5% and 1.5% of this website? They probably aren't worth spending resources on beyond testing on the Mac, but you have to evaluate your costs.
MacIE5 was the first shipping browser to completely support CSS1, and has equivalent or better CSS1 support than any version of WinIE.
- Scott
If you want such-and-such a paragraph to appear in such-and-such a place, should you have to use funky kludges such as "invisible GIFs" to get the thing to line up properly? You shouldn't HAVE to use invisible GIFs. Or tables in tables in tables in...
And you don't have to, if you use CSS.
- Scott
The programmers want xhtml/css, and none of this crap with embedded tables and transparent gifs. I try to explain to the graphics guys that this is not a magazine, it's a web page, but they don't seem to be able to get it
You guys are secretly on the same side. In additional to providing better content/display separation, xml/xhtml/css provides *more* control over the display, providing more magazine-like features.
But arguing with designers that their designed should be more pedestrian isn't going to accomplish anything. They are trained and expected to be creative and push the boundaries, not churn out the web equivalent of a russian submarine design ethic.
Netscape 4 on Linux (fucking nasty!)
Netscape 4 is severly behind the times and severly broken in terms of rendering modern standards. It wasn't even compliant with CSS1 back when it was introduced in 1997, and the rendering engine has hardly changed since. A lot of people are simply giving up on Netscape 4 because it's such a nightmare to support and no longer is actively maintained.
In fact, the only reason some people still use nested tables and single pixel spacers are because Netscape 4's CSS support is so horrible.
If you don't code html simple and to the standards, it will only look good on your machine/browser
Although history has shown that browser's standard support does not improve until sites start using them.
- Scott
I am also worried in general about Nintendo's catalog and release schedule...Even months after the initial release, the software release schedule does not seem very complete.
I'm pretty sure I hear this every time a new game system is launched.
- Scott
Then on September 13th, 2000, Apple released MacOS X public beta.
Actually, the more significant event was probably when Apple demoed Mac OS X for the first time at the January 2000 Macworld Expo. That's when everyone did the "whoa" when they saw Aqua for the first time.
- Scott
(Okay... little strangeness there with /. -- let's try this again.)
Those talking about shadows not matching up are very stupid and ignoring the fact that a normal room contains a varied mix of ambient, omni, and spot lighting.
Apple may have a PDA in the labs, but this photo portrays an object that has nothing in common with the Apple design ethic other than it is silver. And even then, only one other Apple product is silver.
- Scott
Those talking about shadows not matching up are very stupid and ignoring the fact that a normal room contains a varied
"They announced the iPod instead, a lame MP3 player."
The iPod is not a PDA, but it probably is the best all-around MP3 player on the market, and certainly the best size/storage space ratio.
- Scott
Having to use MacOS.... :-(
Errr, how about getting to use Mac OS X with it?
- Scott
I installed MySql [entropy.ch] today on it tonight, you wanna know why? Cause I could.
The official mysql.com site now provides binaries for Mac OS X as well.
- Scott
According to this Apple still havent innovated anything in 10yrs !
All this says to me is that Apple didn't do what Jakob Neilsen and his colleagues would have.
- Scott
The picture is supposed to be real, but personally I think it looks more like a LightWave rendering or something
This doesn't look like a product designed by Apple.
- Scott
While I respect John's reviews (and frequent ars), I think he understated the advantage of the speed boost in 10.1. Where my family's G3/450 desktop originally could not run OS X acceptably, as of 10.1 it has become the primary OS
I second that. An iBook G3/500 with 128MB of ram was unusable with 10.0.4. But it zips right along under 10.1.
Classic was not used in both cases.
- Scott
You know how Solaris 2.6 was reported as SunOS 5.6? It's like that. Mac OS X is more than a version number, it's a new brand name. They may change it again, though.
- Scott
What Apple should have done, IMHO, is acknowledge that this is a new operating system, which is System 10. I am pronouncing it "Mac OS Ten" or "Mac OS Ten point One."
My guess is that the X is supposed to be a convenient and obvious way to express that this is not a continuation of the old product line. I've seen posts even on slashdot where people don't understand that OS9 and OSX are completely different types of operating systems. The fact that X has something of double meaning is very much in Apple's style.
They should leave the "X" as a marketing gimmick anyway, since all it really does is make people confuse it with the X Window System.
It's certainly a marketing gimmick as well, but I doubt they're very concerned about people confusing X11 with it.
- Scott
many commentators with an eye towards, and knowledge about HCI find OS X to be a step backwards from MacOS
Well, perhaps the design differs from what they would envision, but that doesn't make them bad.
A lot of the article I've read in the context you describe consists of people heavily mixing their own personal tastes with fact. They are afraid pretty things are major threat to robot-like efficiency.
All too often, there are people speaking purely from the perspective of scientific interaction, not taking overall experience into account. There's more to it than how quickly a action can be performed. Experience is what really dictates the user's level of satisfaction. My sister, for example, enjoys her iBook much more with Mac OS X installed on it. Whether a UI expert thinks she should or not doesn't really matter. She likes Mac OS X.
I share my sister's sentiment. I like my computer experience much better with Mac OS X running than any other operating system.
User interface is in no way a mature medium, and I would guess rules are going to be rewritten before some stablization occurs. Not that these commentators didn't bring up some valid points, but many of them have been addressed since the public beta came out.
- Scott
Hey Apple - as a dare, how about releasing OSX for the Intel platform?
There are so many reasons not to do it, and it would take quite a while to explain. I'll try to summarize:
[1] Revenue
[2] User Experience
[3] Value Proposition
[4] Mac Office
[5] OS X would never get preinstalled
Apple's biggest problem is that they cant decide what they want to be - a software company or a hardware company.
Jobs has been very clear that they are a computer company. That is they make the whole computer, not just the shell.
- Scott
What is inevitable in the future, and what I would like to see being developed now, is a set of universal 'Desktop Settings'
This requires way more cooperation than I see willingness to do at this point.
Not to mention the fact if people stick to one desktop metaphor, they'll never experience better ones. These concepts are still evolving.
- Scott
However, no update is available by download
.1 version is misleading. The OS has had major changes at every level. It's a biggun.
The
- Scott